Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Wilzig, Grangers await decision on track, again
Injunction junction: the waiting game
By Molly Salisbury
TAGHKANIC — The town of Taghkanic, located just 10 or so miles east of Hudson, is the locale of a contentious legal battle over property rights. The scenario pits the right of banking heir and Taghkanic landowner Alan Wilzig to build and use a mile-long, 30-foot-wide paved track on his 240-acre property, versus the rights of a group of exceedingly organized, savvy Taghkanic residents who call themselves the Granger Group. This group vehemently opposes the track, variously decrying the potential noise, devaluation of neighboring properties and general inappropriateness of a track of that size in the tiny — population 1,118 — town.
In a legal action filed April 15, the Granger Group and 11 other plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment. The temporary restraining order was approved immediately, and Wilzig has not had use of — or been able to work on — his track since April 17 of this year. Actually, the track is substantially finished. The real ramification of the restraining order, and now the injunction, is that Wilzig can’t pave the track, and the whole reason he built it was to be able to ride his Italian Ducati motorcycles safely (i.e. out of traffic). Ducatis are street bikes that need to be ridden on asphalt.
The mills of justice grind slowly. Will Alan Wilzig ever get to ride his Ducati motorcycles on his private track?
He probably won’t get a chance this summer.
The opinion released Monday approved the preliminary injunction blocking Wilzig from using or continuing work on his track until the rest of the case — a declaratory judgment action that seeks, basically, to make the preliminary injunction permanent — is decided. The Supreme Court decision is favorable to the Granger Group. To even obtain a preliminary injunction, the Granger Group had to make a “prima facie showing” that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
Justice McGrath must think their case has teeth.
Wilzig bought the Taghkanic parcel in 2005 and began building the track without pre-approval. Wilzig’s initial 2007 proposal to construct the track was submitted to and rejected by the town Zoning Board of Appeals. The rejected proposal ruled the paved track is not a standard accessory use on a residential property. That decision was appealed by Wilzig and upheld in state court.
Wilzig submitted another, differently worded proposal in 2008. This proposal specified the track use as recreational, as opposed to standard accessory use. This time the proposal was approved by the ZBA.
The ZBA’s ruling was appealed by the Granger Group, but upheld, three-to-one, by the Zoning Board May 19 of this year.
One of the Granger Group’s strongest legal arguments is that Wilzig should have argued that the track was a “recreational use” the first time around. Under the doctrine of res judicata, the same case can’t be argued twice. The whole track issue has already been through the courts and rejected as a “standard accessory use.” The semantics may decide the case.
Wilzig has support. One of his lawyers, David Everett, points out, “Approvals have been received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Columbia County Planning Board and the (Taghkanic) Town ZEO, Planning Board and ZBA. No other approvals are now required.” And if it weren’t for the Granger Group and their lawsuits, the track, officially, would be good to go.
Apparently, this litany of approvals left McGrath unmoved.
Monday evening at the Taghkanic Town Board meeting the town’s attorney, Robert Fitzsimmons, announced the issuance of McGrath’s opinion, and commented that it weighed heavily in favor of the Granger Group.
He described the town as being in the middle of the warring parties. “Both Wilzig and the Granger Group are firmly entrenched, and the town is in the middle, like a battleship with missiles lobbing over us, back and forth,” he said.
Fitzsimmons also noted, with some relief, that at least the issue of the garage/motorcycle storage building has been put to rest. In May, New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow Wilzig’s storage building to remain without penalty. In the Granger Group’s current suit, they also requested that the garage/motorcycle storage building be declared “not a permissible use.”
McGrath’s opinion defers to the earlier legal proceedings regarding the storage building — so the building is in the free and clear.
The Granger Group, attacking on all fronts, has also filed an Article 78 Proceeding (a device that allows review of state and local administrative proceedings in court), which seeks a judgment vacating the Planning Board’s site plan approval of Wilzig’s track. The petition also challenges the board’s decision that an Environmental Impact Statement wasn’t needed. This, and all the legal documents from both sides pertaining to the cases, can be viewed at the Granger Group’s Web site at grangergroup.cc.
One question that remains unanswered is that if the track is declared “not a permissible use,” then what will happen to it? Will the track be bulldozed or merely remain unpaved?
By Molly Salisbury
TAGHKANIC — The town of Taghkanic, located just 10 or so miles east of Hudson, is the locale of a contentious legal battle over property rights. The scenario pits the right of banking heir and Taghkanic landowner Alan Wilzig to build and use a mile-long, 30-foot-wide paved track on his 240-acre property, versus the rights of a group of exceedingly organized, savvy Taghkanic residents who call themselves the Granger Group. This group vehemently opposes the track, variously decrying the potential noise, devaluation of neighboring properties and general inappropriateness of a track of that size in the tiny — population 1,118 — town.
In a legal action filed April 15, the Granger Group and 11 other plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment. The temporary restraining order was approved immediately, and Wilzig has not had use of — or been able to work on — his track since April 17 of this year. Actually, the track is substantially finished. The real ramification of the restraining order, and now the injunction, is that Wilzig can’t pave the track, and the whole reason he built it was to be able to ride his Italian Ducati motorcycles safely (i.e. out of traffic). Ducatis are street bikes that need to be ridden on asphalt.
The mills of justice grind slowly. Will Alan Wilzig ever get to ride his Ducati motorcycles on his private track?
He probably won’t get a chance this summer.
The opinion released Monday approved the preliminary injunction blocking Wilzig from using or continuing work on his track until the rest of the case — a declaratory judgment action that seeks, basically, to make the preliminary injunction permanent — is decided. The Supreme Court decision is favorable to the Granger Group. To even obtain a preliminary injunction, the Granger Group had to make a “prima facie showing” that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
Justice McGrath must think their case has teeth.
Wilzig bought the Taghkanic parcel in 2005 and began building the track without pre-approval. Wilzig’s initial 2007 proposal to construct the track was submitted to and rejected by the town Zoning Board of Appeals. The rejected proposal ruled the paved track is not a standard accessory use on a residential property. That decision was appealed by Wilzig and upheld in state court.
Wilzig submitted another, differently worded proposal in 2008. This proposal specified the track use as recreational, as opposed to standard accessory use. This time the proposal was approved by the ZBA.
The ZBA’s ruling was appealed by the Granger Group, but upheld, three-to-one, by the Zoning Board May 19 of this year.
One of the Granger Group’s strongest legal arguments is that Wilzig should have argued that the track was a “recreational use” the first time around. Under the doctrine of res judicata, the same case can’t be argued twice. The whole track issue has already been through the courts and rejected as a “standard accessory use.” The semantics may decide the case.
Wilzig has support. One of his lawyers, David Everett, points out, “Approvals have been received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Columbia County Planning Board and the (Taghkanic) Town ZEO, Planning Board and ZBA. No other approvals are now required.” And if it weren’t for the Granger Group and their lawsuits, the track, officially, would be good to go.
Apparently, this litany of approvals left McGrath unmoved.
Monday evening at the Taghkanic Town Board meeting the town’s attorney, Robert Fitzsimmons, announced the issuance of McGrath’s opinion, and commented that it weighed heavily in favor of the Granger Group.
He described the town as being in the middle of the warring parties. “Both Wilzig and the Granger Group are firmly entrenched, and the town is in the middle, like a battleship with missiles lobbing over us, back and forth,” he said.
Fitzsimmons also noted, with some relief, that at least the issue of the garage/motorcycle storage building has been put to rest. In May, New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow Wilzig’s storage building to remain without penalty. In the Granger Group’s current suit, they also requested that the garage/motorcycle storage building be declared “not a permissible use.”
McGrath’s opinion defers to the earlier legal proceedings regarding the storage building — so the building is in the free and clear.
The Granger Group, attacking on all fronts, has also filed an Article 78 Proceeding (a device that allows review of state and local administrative proceedings in court), which seeks a judgment vacating the Planning Board’s site plan approval of Wilzig’s track. The petition also challenges the board’s decision that an Environmental Impact Statement wasn’t needed. This, and all the legal documents from both sides pertaining to the cases, can be viewed at the Granger Group’s Web site at grangergroup.cc.
One question that remains unanswered is that if the track is declared “not a permissible use,” then what will happen to it? Will the track be bulldozed or merely remain unpaved?
Share this Article
 |
||
| Sunday barn fire still under investigation |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
